Favorite landscape lens on a FF - Full Frame

I could never shoot landscapes with primes. I would gladly give up the limited IQ superiority of the prime for the freedom of the zoom.

MNUplander wrote in post #15295237
I think we're in different camps then - I've owned several 17-40's, 10-22's and used a handful of other wide zooms. I've always been disappointed with every one of them on 20x30 prints, which is the size I prefer to print.

I shoot landscapes exclusively with primes and wouldn't have it any other way. After a time using them, your eyes learn to see compositions in the FOV's you have available in your bag and it becomes natural. It's not much different than any other type of photography where you make the choice to switch to primes, really. If you demand the critical IQ from a prime, you'll work around it's limitations - fixed focal lengths, manual focus, etc.

Aside from the IQ boost you get over zooms, it's also easier to remember where to set your focus on a prime for a given aperture since you only have one focal length to remember it for. On a zoom with those terrible focus windows, it becomes more of a trial-and-error guessing game to set your focus for each scene. With my primes, I set my aperture based on how close my nearest foreground object is and I know just where to set my focus for that aperture for critical sharpness.

I suppose we are in different camps, then. Perhaps you don't do much shooting in areas with lots of hills or mountains, where one step back can mean one meter down, and now your mountain peaks are halfway obscured behind some ridge. I have a number of excellent primes, including one TS-E (24mm), and they no longer live in my bag full-time. I went through my phase of shooting almost exclusively primes, but those are now my least-used lenses. Sure, you learn to see compositions that will work with the two or three focal lengths you have in your bag, but you're ultimately going to end up doing a lot of compromising with primes.

As for the image quality, well, it depends. The newer zoom lenses are on par with a lot of primes. I'll admit that the 17-40 goes to hell in the extreme corners at its wider focal lengths, but it doesn't ruin the prints for me; the corners aren't where the main interest lies, so I can live with it (but I will jump on any successor to the lens that is improved in this regard). The OP isn't asking about longer focal lengths, but the 70-200mm f/4L IS is legendary for its prime-like sharpness. It leaves me wanting nothing for landscape work at those focal lengths.

I can't argue with your point about focusing for maximum DoF; it is that much easier if you have only few focal lengths to worry about. Fortunately with digital, it's not that big of a deal, though. I'm now quite quick about guesstimating, chimping, and adjusting. Once you have a few focal lengths pretty well 'internalized,' the ones around them aren't far off. I don't find that focusing is a major problem.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15295386
I have to disagree and I think Ansel Adams would too.

Ansel Adams traveled around with burrows or station wagons loaded with equipment. I think if he had the option to use today's high-quality zooms, he would have done so gladly.

Phrasikleia, I'm not disagreeing with you that zooms have their place and often replace primes, I'm just surprised at the ignorance of the comment "Prime lenses and landscape photography are simply not a great combination" coming from somebody that does such fantastic work.

Right now, you are using zooms and doing great with that, you have some of the better stuff I've seen. My best work has been with zooms and in a way, shooting with primes makes me a better photographer, because I appreciate the flexibility of a zoom a lot more when I switch back. I bet you that shooting with primes for that period really helped your skills.

I just think it isn't good to generalize and say that primes and landscape work is "simply" not a great combination. They both have their time and place.

SinaiTSi wrote in post #15295577
Phrasikleia, I'm not disagreeing with you that zooms have their place and often replace primes, I'm just surprised at the ignorance of the comment "Prime lenses and landscape photography are simply not a great combination" coming from somebody that does such fantastic work.

Right now, you are using zooms and doing great with that, you have some of the better stuff I've seen. My best work has been with zooms and in a way, shooting with primes makes me a better photographer, because I appreciate the flexibility of a zoom a lot more when I switch back. I bet you that shooting with primes for that period really helped your skills.

I just think it isn't good to generalize and say that primes and landscape work is "simply" not a great combination. They both have their time and place.

SinaiTSi, thanks for your kind words (really, you're very sweet!) and for pressing me a bit harder on that point. I could have chosen my words more carefully, I'll admit. I just had some very frustrating experiences at the tail end of the period when I shot with my prime lenses most of the time. Once bitten, twice shy, as they say. It's the times when you really need to be just that little extra bit wider that hurt the most, and I had a few of those that kept me from getting some good shots. Like I said, I do a lot of alpine photography, where alignments are everything, the terrain is ridiculously uneven, trees are often blocking a lot of views, etc. I'm often backpacking for days on end, so I can't bring a whole suite of primes (nor can I bring a burrow like Ansel Adams did!). For me, the prime lenses were just too much of a compromise.

What you said about using primes making you a better photographer resounds with truth, though. Yes, I do think that I learned a lot about 'seeing' and about those focal lengths I was using. I have an inexplicable bond with those prime lenses, and though they are quite expensive, I don't think I could ever sell one of them, even though I don't use them that much anymore.

Anyway, I'm sorry for being too vague and for generalizing. My main point is that if you're doing a lot of landscape work in a lot of different environments, you're going to need a lot of focal lengths. How you go about 'packing' them is up to you.

I dont see why I have to restrict myself to one or the other.

I make use of the 17-40L and 24tse.

I'm tempted with a 17tse and a 14 samyang too.

IMO for landscapes you cant beat a lens thats pin sharp corner to corner, very few zooms are.

Phrasikleia wrote in post #15295780
SinaiTSi, thanks for your kind words (really, you're very sweet!) and for pressing me a bit harder on that point. I could have chosen my words more carefully, I'll admit. I just had some very frustrating experiences at the tail end of the period when I shot with my prime lenses most of the time. Once bitten, twice shy, as they say. It's the times when you really need to be just that little extra bit wider that hurt the most, and I had a few of those that kept me from getting some good shots. Like I said, I do a lot of alpine photography, where alignments are everything, the terrain is ridiculously uneven, trees are often blocking a lot of views, etc. I'm often backpacking for days on end, so I can't bring a whole suite of primes (nor can I bring a burrow like Ansel Adams did!). For me, the prime lenses were just too much of a compromise.

What you said about using primes making you a better photographer resounds with truth, though. Yes, I do think that I learned a lot about 'seeing' and about those focal lengths I was using. I have an inexplicable bond with those prime lenses, and though they are quite expensive, I don't think I could ever sell one of them, even though I don't use them that much anymore.

Anyway, I'm sorry for being too vague and for generalizing. My main point is that if you're doing a lot of landscape work in a lot of different environments, you're going to need a lot of focal lengths. How you go about 'packing' them is up to you.

Yeah, frustrating experiences with a piece of equipment will make you write it off in a heartbeat (I've had many of my own) I was very curious as to why you did and what you said makes total sense, so thank you for sharing.

I will have to say, it is very refreshing to hear somebody be more worried about getting a good composition in the right light rather than worrying about how sharp their lens is. It definitely shows.

17-40L and 28mm prime for me

I like primes and use them overall more than I do zooms. However, the 16-35 is my workhorse lens. I couple that with a 17 TS-E and and an 85L - and I have everything I need usually, with three lenses.

I've tried all of Canon's zoom lenses and owned most - and I still pull for a prime more often than not.

It does have it's downsides, but so do zooms.

In the end, it depends on what you're comfortable with and what your own needs are.

Nikon 14-24 2.8 G.

Phrasikleia wrote in post #15295499
I suppose we are in different camps, then. Perhaps you don't do much shooting in areas with lots of hills or mountains, where one step back can mean one meter down, and now your mountain peaks are halfway obscured behind some ridge. I have a number of excellent primes, including one TS-E (24mm), and they no longer live in my bag full-time. I went through my phase of shooting almost exclusively primes, but those are now my least-used lenses. Sure, you learn to see compositions that will work with the two or three focal lengths you have in your bag, but you're ultimately going to end up doing a lot of compromising with primes.

As for the image quality, well, it depends. The newer zoom lenses are on par with a lot of primes. I'll admit that the 17-40 goes to hell in the extreme corners at its wider focal lengths, but it doesn't ruin the prints for me; the corners aren't where the main interest lies, so I can live with it (but I will jump on any successor to the lens that is improved in this regard). The OP isn't asking about longer focal lengths, but the 70-200mm f/4L IS is legendary for its prime-like sharpness. It leaves me wanting nothing for landscape work at those focal lengths.

Although the terrain is not mountaineous where I live, I think you run into similar limitations no matter where you shoot. Trees, rocks, ledges, and water all get in the way of taking just one more step back and it doesn't happen with just primes - what if 17mm is just one step not wide enough? And, I don't personally care for the perspective you get much wider than 21mm very often so Ill try just about anything to keep from going wider than that.

My landscape kit consists of a Bower 14mm, Zeiss 21mm, Zeiss 50mm and the 70-200 f4 IS and I don't feel like it's too heavy or bulky even for multi-day hikes. And, I can't ever say I've not been able to get a shot because I was limted by the focal lengths available because when I get in a bind I can always swap a lens, crop, re-compose or stitch.

I won't argue with you on the 70-200 f4 IS. I love it for landscape shooting - I'd be hard pressed to change it out for a prime or two in that range because the IQ is so good across the frame at all focal lengths. If there were a 17-40 (or similar) on par with the 70-200 f4 IS, I might re-think things. And, I say I might because I just prefer the experience of working with primes over zooms so my response is probably extremely biased.

And, fantastic shots on your site by the way.

Having owned a 17-40L (twice) and now owning a 24 TS-E I cant recommend the 24 TS-E enough. Its so versatile, especially with the shift function. If budget is an issue then 17-40 all the way.

There obviously is no single perfect answer. I am about to leave for Patagonia, the 17 mm TS lens is on my wish list. I will be bringing 70-200, 2.8, 24-70, 2.8, 14, 2.8 and 8-15 fisheye. I will also bring a 1.4X and 2X TC. The downside of both the 14 mm and the 8-15 are that they cannot be used with standard filters.

It really depends on what and where you shoot. I usually bring the 24-105 and 17-40 and with filters, body and other crap in my bag it's fairly heavy for hiking. If you are going to have to climb to your shooting area and pack in all your gear, weight is a big consideration.

[QUOTE=Gators1;1533219​4]It really depends on what and where you shoot. I usually bring the 24-105 and 17-40 and with filters, body and other crap in my bag it's fairly heavy for hiking. If you are going to have to climb to your shooting area and pack in all your gear, weight is a big consideration.[/QUOTE

absolutely correct, my gear < 20 lbs

Depends what I gone shoot what I Use.

Most of the time I use the Canon 24-70 II. Basically my default lens.
Or when I need more width or tele landscape shots the 16-35 II & 70-200 II